Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30083

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Dude.

You and I both know he’s going to live to be 106, ranting to the mob with his last breath. Because this fucking timeline.

The pus that is slowly replacing his blood will make him look even more unhealthy, but will keep him alive forever.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5910

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Hillary was in a tough spot. When coming up her best political play was to team w Bill and push him to the top. My med school roommate was good friends with a close family friend of the Clintons from Arkansas, and per his account she was the brains and he was the beauty. It would have been a huge uphill battle for her to achieve those levels of success on her own, and solely because she is a woman.

 

Then with his serial infidelity coming to light, she “stood by her man”, which rehabbed her image as a shrew in the post Clinton WH years but completely hamstrung her ability to attack Trump on his predatory, philandering behavior in 2016. All of the negative characteristics in her would be seen as positives in a man, neutral at worst. But she did have a tremendous amount of hubris, with her handling of protocol as SoS leading to legitimate worry about how she would handle being head of the executive branch. This might have been a fatal flaw against a reasonable opponent, but against Trump? The difference was misogyny plain and simple 
 

But let’s not forget, regardless of why, she had a 2/3 negative rating. That’s not all misogyny. The only person likely in the whole fucking country with higher unlikables was Trump. The 2 least popular candidates in history faced off for POTUS in 2016. We are a nation of morons. 

Think if I remember correctly, she was also hammered on her failed health care policy.  I was on board with her for actually having one and trying to implement a plan for everybody.  She didn't have to do any of it--she benefited far more from RW policy than trying to create left wing anything.  So she ran on the idea that she would be the first woman president, and I was and would be fine with that.  That was the extend of her ego.  Hell, for all those against her for standing by her man, three of Bill's Republican Congressmen investigators were having affairs at the time.  Thanks, Newt, you cancerous pos.  Newt was having an affair on his dying wife, but felt fit to vilify Bill, because of course he would--the moral sanctity of Republicans, the party of law and order demanded it.  Goddam useless fecal lumps for anybody but the rich.   

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34412

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting hypo.  A lot of the damage Trump has done was more at the state and "conceptual" level than federal.  In other words, his actual governmental power as POTUS was mostly irrelevant to the lasting damage, except to the extent it gave him a pulpit, and maybe a place as a "winner."

But if he had done the same post-2020 bullshit as a loser in 2016, we might still be dealing with all the state and local level idiocy.  I'm not quite sure that he would have been as unhinged and as well-received among the morons if he hadn't won something first, though.

Any R president probably would have appointed very similar judges.  Maybe a one or even two fewer Catlicks, though, which might have avoided Cunty-Barrett and Kav.  I wonder a bit about some of the lower-court stooges he appointed, some of them are extra bad.  I think some more traditional R advisors might have kept some of the loonbags off the courts because they were afraid to reap the whirlwind of non-incremental change.

I don’t think we’d have had the MAGA movement and a good chunk of the worst Congress crustaceans wouldn’t have gotten past the primary. The organizing and motivating power that came with the WH is tough to overstate. 
 

Had he lost, he’d have huffed and whined and had a half-baked “stolen” theory, but there’d have been no J6. People expected him to lose and he’d have done that, and no one would consider MAGA as a way to get to the top in politics.  The GOP would have been tea party opposition to Hilary. In retrospect, the tea parties seem positively SANE. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14243

Posted
Posted

I guess this goes here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/nyregion/bragg-lawsuit-jim-jordan-trump-indictment.html

Quote

Bragg Sues Jim Jordan in Move to Block Interference in Trump Case
Mr. Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, had subpoenaed a former prosecutor who worked on the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump.

By Jonah E. Bromwich, Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum
April 11, 2023, 2:29 p.m. ET

The Manhattan district attorney on Tuesday sued Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio in an extraordinary step intended to keep congressional Republicans from interfering in the office’s criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump.

The 50-page suit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, accuses Mr. Jordan of a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” on the prosecution of Mr. Trump and a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. Mr. Bragg last week unveiled 34 felony charges against Mr. Trump that stem from the former president’s attempts to cover up a potential sex scandal during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.

Lawyers for Mr. Bragg are seeking to bar Mr. Jordan and his congressional allies from enforcing a subpoena sent to Mark F. Pomerantz, who was once a leader of the district attorney’s Trump investigation and who later wrote a book about that experience. Mr. Pomerantz resigned early last year after Mr. Bragg, just weeks into his first term in office, decided not to seek an indictment of Trump at that time.

Mr. Bragg’s lawyers, including Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of the law firm Gibson Dunn and Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel in the district attorney’s office, also intend to prevent any other such subpoenas, the lawsuit says. Mr. Jordan has left open the possibility of subpoenaing Mr. Bragg.

Mr. Pomerantz is also named as a defendant in the suit, though that appears to be a formality. By naming him, Mr. Bragg’s lawyers are seeking to block Mr. Pomerantz from testifying if he were legally compelled to do so. Mr. Pomerantz has shown no indication that he is willing to testify voluntarily. He declined to comment on Tuesday.

Last month, Mr. Jordan, in his role as the House Judiciary Committee chairman, sent a letter with two Republican colleagues that demanded the district attorney’s office provide communications, documents and testimony about Mr. Bragg’s investigation of Mr. Trump. And after Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors last week unveiled the charges against Mr. Trump, Mr. Jordan issued the subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz seeking to compel a closed-door deposition.

In his book, published earlier this year, Mr. Pomerantz described his view of Mr. Trump’s actions as plainly criminal, as well as his frustrations with Mr. Bragg when he took office in 2022 and did not charge Mr. Trump. That decision led Mr. Pomerantz and another of the investigation’s leaders, Carey Dunne, to resign.

Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne were primarily focused on whether Mr. Trump had fraudulently inflated the value of his assets, but Mr. Bragg was not confident in their case. After they left, he and his aides began focusing on a hush-money payment made to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, during the 2016 campaign.

Mr. Bragg continued the investigation and impaneled a grand jury to hear evidence about Mr. Trump in January. The jurors voted to indict Mr. Trump late last month.

Mr. Bragg’s office has accused House Republicans of illegally meddling in a criminal investigation and prosecution without a legitimate purpose. Republicans have fired back that they have oversight powers in relation to Mr. Bragg’s unprecedented step of indicting a former president — one who is also a current candidate for political office.

Last month, Mr. Trump announced on his social media website, Truth Social, that he was going to be arrested three days later. The claim was false — no indictment had been voted on at the time — but it set in motion extensive defenses of Mr. Trump by allies in the Republican-led Congress, who vowed to investigate the district attorney.

Mr. Jordan’s committee announced on Monday that it plans to hold a “field hearing” in New York City on April 17, apparently intending to suggest that Mr. Bragg is focused on the prosecution of Mr. Trump rather than Manhattan’s crime rate.

On Monday afternoon, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office characterized the hearing as a “political stunt” and pointed toward Police Department data that shows murders, shootings and burglaries are down in Manhattan this year.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I guess this goes here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/nyregion/bragg-lawsuit-jim-jordan-trump-indictment.html

 

 

If you have a privilege, or a valid reason not to testify to Congress, this is how you do it.

Get em, Bragg.

I think you nabobs are going to see some good legal work frustrating Gym and his idiot mob.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted

I know Jim's a piece of shit, pedophile-enabler but he's actually not the legal dumbass some make him out to be.  He knows he can't legally do this, but he's doing it to raise money and solidify his position among the MAGA base.  And it'll work.  Trouble is, Bragg called his bluff and can now get him to admit during discovery that Jim knows he can't do this.  Now, nobody in MAGA Nation is gonna care about that part because it's legal jargon and they can't even really speak English.  so Jim's Gym Gambit is too delay this until about Autumn 2024 while screaming about it to the red meat base.  If he times it correctly, it could actually work to his benefit.  Won't do shit for Trump, but could help elevate Jim's standing within the party.  Bad news though, is zero fucking precedent for his move so he risks being laughed out of "indictment-land" in two weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BearSchlong

BearSchlong 8077

Posted
Posted
It’s been talked to death here and on Shaggy, but a lot of us who were of age in the 90s developed an image of her and Bill that was….complicated, and not just because of law firm records turning up out of nowhere or capping ex-lovers in a park and making it look like suicide .  
Those were such innocent times compared to Trump.




a0e1d004414b657eb15db0d205c3a0d6.jpg
c03a631e986a48890ffc98046d60de5f.jpg
73eb2d4cffb6d072343d2df6a68e497f.jpg
93f0e4aae03244df5c26d9c6d592de72.jpg
ec5b3e57c8b7e773a2066d79ecefcd54.jpg

No kidding. Sexting and buffoonery and a lack of charisma, plus all the Clinton murders, I’d have traded that in a heartbeat for what we got with trump.

And yes, the media paid that girl for her story, and yes, she spent it on drugs. I haven’t seen her in a minute but I think she is doing better. She doesn’t like me very much because I tried to warn a few close friends to stop putting her pussy on a pedestal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10970

Posted
Posted
On 4/10/2023 at 10:52 AM, NameAlreadyInUse said:

As a former sufferer of Hillary Derangement Syndrome myself, this is correct.  A whole bunch of us let 30 years of propaganda, which really got started because she had the audacity to sit on a committee to try to reform healthcare, taint our impression of her.  Thanks Rush/Fox/et al.

 

 

If the Republican Hate Machine fooled smart people like Twice and others on this board, imagine what it did to all the olds and the stupids.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Post Oak

Post Oak 20182

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

If the Republican Hate Machine fooled smart people like Twice and others on this board, imagine what it did to all the olds and the stupids.

 

 

Think about how dumb Twice is and realize half the population is dumber than that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29769

Posted
Posted
On 4/10/2023 at 8:55 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I admitted some latent misogyny.  But Liz has great ideas and apparently is a rotten politician, because her campaign sucked shit and was full of unforced errors.  It was worse that Hillary's.  I didn't realize this until she actually started her campaign, until then I was hoping she'd win the nom, and I would have voted for her had her own blunders not taken her out of the primary.

I have no objection to a woman as president.  I think I'd like Liz Warren as president, still.

My dislike of Hillary is quite a bit more nuanced than appears here and i'll leave it at that.

I have no question that Hillary is quite bright and an accomplished scholar.  Which leads me to believe she should have had a more significant career than adjunct to Bill's.

 

What were Warren's errors? She was and remains my favorite candidate from that race although there a few other good ones as well.  John Inslee seems terrific as does Buttigieg. If we were a more open minded and fair electorate, all of those guys would have had good chances against Trump. But we're not.

After the election (I happily voted for Biden whom I've always liked), I could see more clearly why any of those people would have been crushed. We're not a meritocracy. We don't read. We do not apply much in the way of critical thought. It's a horse race not a considered political decision. Biden was by far the better horse even if others were better candidates.

All that said, I don't recall Warren making fatal errors. In the eyes of much of our adolescent-esque insecure teenage boy electorate, women and gays are soft. They probably don't love guns. They're surely not real Christians or they'd be GOPs.

I'll take your word that your Hillary dislike is nuanced. That would be rare. I think she's caught more hate-engine propaganda than anyone. She's a brilliant woman who cares about the world and her country. I don't think she's a great choice for elective politics. Her best career would have been shining in an ascent through appointed roles.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
royiv

royiv 9145

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

That's one way to kick the can down the road. He can just stack indictment upon lawsuit upon indictment upon lawsuit in perpetuity and just argue that there's too much publicity. It's definitely a strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29769

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, YGIFS said:

he's actually not the legal dumbass some make him out to be.  He knows he can't legally do this, but he's doing it to raise money and solidify his position among the MAGA base.  And it'll work.

This is hardly relevatory, my friend. His whole party and cult leader have been operatind as a criminal organzation for years and years. There's nothing subtle about it anymore; it's right in the open. And, yes, it will work. 

Idiot World

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you have a privilege, or a valid reason not to testify to Congress, this is how you do it.

Get em, Bragg.

I think you nabobs are going to see some good legal work frustrating Gym and his idiot mob.

Looky, looky here, Alvin Bragg using the Mazars case and asserting privileges against Gym Jordan.  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23772947/read-alvin-braggs-lawsuit-against-house-judiciary-chairman-jim-jordan-over-trump-probe-interference.pdf

Second, even if Chairman Jordan and the Committee were able to demonstrate a valid legislative purpose and withstand the Mazars test (they cannot), the subpoena still would not be enforceable because it could allow the Committee to seek secret grand jury material, confidential investigative material, and information clearly protected by the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, law enforcement, informant’s, and public interest privileges. These privileges exist to protect precisely the type of information Chairman Jordan and the Committee are seeking—confidential law enforcement and legal materials compiled during investigations and in the lead-up to a prosecution. The privileges are designed to prevent the type of obstruction and interference with ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions that Chairman Jordan and the Committee’s actions represent.

I'm guessing these privilege assertions aren't "fuck fuck games" anymore, eh @Captainant?  Or does that depend on who asserts them?

Legal arguments are tools, basically.  They can be misused or used by the wrong people, but the tools themselves are neutral, dumb.  The courts pretty reliably sort that out.

ETA:  You all remember the Mazars case, right?  It was SCOTUS creating a new test for the legitimacy of a Congressional subpoena to the executive or another branch of government.  At the time, it resulted in a remand of the case to the lower courts for application of the test, ostensibly giving Trump another chance, which he failed.

But lo, here it is, being used by one of the good guys to foil one of the bad guys.  That's kind of how this shit works.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

What were Warren's errors? She was and remains my favorite candidate from that race although there a few other good ones as well.  John Inslee seems terrific as does Buttigieg. If we were a more open minded and fair electorate, all of those guys would have had good chances against Trump. But we're not.

After the election (I happily voted for Biden whom I've always liked), I could see more clearly why any of those people would have been crushed. We're not a meritocracy. We don't read. We do not apply much in the way of critical thought. It's a horse race not a considered political decision. Biden was by far the better horse even if others were better candidates.

All that said, I don't recall Warren making fatal errors. In the eyes of much of our adolescent-esque insecure teenage boy electorate, women and gays are soft. They probably don't love guns. They're surely not real Christians or they'd be GOPs.

I'll take your word that your Hillary dislike is nuanced. That would be rare. I think she's caught more hate-engine propaganda than anyone. She's a brilliant woman who cares about the world and her country. I don't think she's a great choice for elective politics. Her best career would have been shining in an ascent through appointed roles.

Things that were pointed out by the politically astute, such as JS1.  I don't recall exactly and I wasn't following her every move.  But I was told by those here whose opinions I value on such matters that she blundered her campaign pretty badly.  And, it may not have made any difference, she may just not have had the national profile she needed.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Speculation, but hopefully educated and informed speculation that resembles the truth.

If so, this is beautiful.  Pretty clear federal felony crimes that relate directly to Trump's childish use of power.  Assuming the map is "real classified" information (as opposed to over-classified), and it probably would be or lil Donnie Dotard wouldnt' be showing it off, he's falling pretty squarely in violation of 18 USC 793 in addition to the obstruction charges.

Get em, Jack.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33831

Posted
Posted

this dickhead has been so terrible for so long and I don't care to look it up, but anyone else remember when we were rushing to get our spies and other undercover operatives back to safe space after it was learned that tfg had mishandled classified docs and in some cases accidentally revealed their identities or locations? I can't even remember if that was when he was in office or after. anyway, imagine the damage he has likely done since. what weapons tech has he given away? how compromised is our population along with our allies across the globe? this man has made all of us fundamentally less safe. remains to be seen how serious it is. my guess: as serious as it gets. this truly is THE test of our time. I'm not loving our chances of passing.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCHorn

LCHorn 2585

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Things that were pointed out by the politically astute, such as JS1.  I don't recall exactly and I wasn't following her every move.  But I was told by those here whose opinions I value on such matters that she blundered her campaign pretty badly.  And, it may not have made any difference, she may just not have had the national profile she needed.

I've not read any campaign after action reports that support campaign blundering, but I do think she couldn't find a lane and felt the "Bern".  Between her, Biden, and Bernie there's only so much Democratic support for old white people and I don't think it's an accident that the candidate most appealing to African American voters (of the three) won the primary.  I think Warren did about as well she could have expected to in this modern, media saturated environment (it's far harder to have a "wow, look at Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio" moment because in 2023 we already know everything there is to know that's interesting about a candidate in the first 48 hours of the campaign). 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85085

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Things that were pointed out by the politically astute, such as JS1.  I don't recall exactly and I wasn't following her every move.  But I was told by those here whose opinions I value on such matters that she blundered her campaign pretty badly.  And, it may not have made any difference, she may just not have had the national profile she needed.

I don’t recall anything I said but I’m sure I was right 

Nicole Richie Hair Flip GIF

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...